↓ Skip to main content

Clinical guides for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome in Japan

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Clinical guides for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome in Japan
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10157-016-1276-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hideki Kato, Masaomi Nangaku, Hiroshi Hataya, Toshihiro Sawai, Akira Ashida, Rika Fujimaru, Yoshihiko Hidaka, Shinya Kaname, Shoichi Maruyama, Takashi Yasuda, Yoko Yoshida, Shuichi Ito, Motoshi Hattori, Yoshitaka Miyakawa, Yoshihiro Fujimura, Hirokazu Okada, Shoji Kagami, The Joint Committee for the Revision of Clinical Guides of Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome in Japan

Abstract

Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is a rare disease characterized by the triad of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and acute kidney injury. In 2013, we developed diagnostic criteria to enable early diagnosis and timely initiation of appropriate treatment for aHUS. Recent clinical and molecular findings have resulted in several proposed classifications and definitions of thrombotic microangiopathy and aHUS. Based on recent advances in this field and the emerging international consensus to exclude secondary TMAs from the definition of aHUS, we have redefined aHUS and proposed diagnostic algorithms, differential diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies for aHUS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,632,549
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Nephrology
#140
of 769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,276
of 359,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Nephrology
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 769 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.